News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
Just hours after Starship Flight 13 achieved a successful soft splashdown of its upper stage in the Indian Ocean on July 24, Elon Musk announced an ambitious next step for the company’s next launch of the rocket.
“Unless we discover problems after mission data review, SpaceX will attempt to catch the ship with the tower on [the] next flight,” the SpaceX CEO posted on X on Friday.
That “next flight” is expected to be Flight 14. The plan involves returning the Starship upper stage, commonly called the “ship,” to the Starbase launch tower in Texas and catching it mid-air using the same mechanical “chopsticks” arms that have already proven themselves with the Super Heavy booster.
Unless we discover problems after mission data review, SpaceX will attempt to catch the ship with the tower on next flight
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 25, 2026
A successful catch would mark the first time an orbital-class upper stage has been recovered this way, advancing SpaceX’s goal of full and rapid reusability for the entire vehicle.
SpaceX has already demonstrated the tower-catch technique multiple times with Super Heavy. The first successful catch came on Flight 5 in October 2024, when Booster 12 was plucked from the sky by the Mechazilla arms. Subsequent flights, including those involving Boosters 14 and 15, repeated the feat. Several of those recovered boosters were later inspected, refurbished, and flown again, proving the system’s viability for quick turnaround.
Traditional reusable rockets, such as SpaceX’s own Falcon 9 or Blue Origin’s New Shepard, land on legs either on land or droneships. Rocket Lab has recovered its small Electron first stages by helicopter, but those are far lighter vehicles.
SpaceX Starship just nailed something it’s never done before
The China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT), a subsidiary of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp. (CASC), completed a catch of its booster on July 10. They are the only entity besides SpaceX to attempt and complete the feat.
Flight 13 provided encouraging data. The ship executed a controlled reentry, flipped, and soft-landed intact in the ocean after deploying Starlink satellites, offering the first clear post-splashdown views of an undamaged heat shield. The Super Heavy booster, meanwhile, experienced a harder splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico.
Musk has previously stressed that ship catches would only follow multiple successful soft ocean landings to minimize risk of debris over land.
If Flight 14 succeeds, SpaceX would take a major stride toward routine, rapid reuse of both stages—critical for lowering launch costs and supporting ambitious plans for lunar and Mars missions. For now, teams are reviewing the Flight 13 data. Should everything check out, the next Starship flight could deliver one of the most spectacular recoveries in aerospace history.
In a move echoing its earlier commitment to open innovation, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced recently that the company plans to make the design and software of its Model S and Model X fully open source.
This follows the same approach Tesla took with its original Roadster, releasing all available design, engineering, and diagnostic materials in November 2023 so that “whatever we have, you now have.”
Just as Tesla made the original Roadster design & software open source, we plan to do the same with Model S & X
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 24, 2026
The Model S, introduced in 2012, was Tesla’s first mass-produced vehicle and a groundbreaking luxury electric sedan. It offered impressive range, rapid acceleration, and over-the-air software updates that redefined expectations for electric cars.
The Model X, launched in 2015, built on that foundation as a high-performance electric SUV notable for its distinctive falcon-wing doors, spacious interior, and advanced safety features. Both models served as flagships that helped establish Tesla as a leader in the EV industry and popularized long-range battery-electric vehicles.
Production of the Model S and Model X was wound down earlier in 2026, with manufacturing ending in the second quarter. Tesla redirected the Fremont factory space previously used for these vehicles toward higher-priority projects, including Optimus humanoid robots and the Cybercab autonomous vehicle.
By the time of Musk’s open-source announcement, custom orders had closed and only remaining inventory was available.
Open-sourcing the designs and software offers several clear advantages. Owners of these aging but still capable vehicles gain better access to technical documentation, diagnostic tools, and software resources, making independent repairs and modifications easier and more affordable.
Independent repair shops and third-party specialists can support the large existing fleet without relying solely on Tesla’s service network. Enthusiasts and engineers can study real-world implementations of Tesla’s battery, powertrain, and software systems, potentially accelerating broader industry progress in electric mobility.
The step aligns with Tesla’s 2014 patent pledge and its overall mission to advance sustainable transport by sharing hard-won knowledge rather than locking it behind proprietary walls.
By releasing these materials now that the models have left production, Tesla ensures continued support for its early adopters while freeing internal resources for future technologies. The open-source release of the original Roadster already enabled simulations, community projects, and deeper technical understanding.
Extending that practice to the Model S and Model X should deliver similar benefits on a larger scale, helping keep these influential vehicles relevant and repairable for years to come
Tesla flexed one incredible Robotaxi metric during the Q2 Earnings Call that skeptics have to hate to hear. The company’s platform has already driven more than 380,000 miles of unsupervised ride-hailing across several states with no notable incidents.
During the company’s Q2 Earnings Call on Wednesday, Vice President of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said:
“First of all, I’d like to state that the Robotaxi program has been operating extremely well. Especially in terms of safety, the program has had an impeccable safety record. We have driven more than 380,000 miles of unsupervised Robotaxi, now across six cities in two different states. We have had zero notable incidents. Any reports have been of other actors impacting us when we were stationary. I like to emphasize how safe the operation has been so far. Zero notable incidents over 380,000 miles.”
Elluswamy’s claim over Robotaxi miles is a significant milestone for Tesla in the grand scheme, especially considering this is a sizeable number of miles without any incident.
0 notable incidents across over 380,000 miles traveled by Robotaxi
— Tesla (@Tesla) July 22, 2026
Tesla’s self-driving approach is much different than that of other companies. Tesla has maintained that vision is the only thing needed to have a solid and effective self-driving suite. Many self-driving companies utilize things like LiDAR, sensors, and other elements to improve performance, but Elluswamy sent a jab at those who believe it’s needed.
“Historically, the so-called experts have always claimed that you need LiDARs, radars, HD maps, and the entire kitchen sink to drive safely. Here we show that such is not true. You can have safe, comfortable, and affordable autonomy with just cameras. This record should be a huge validation of Tesla’s entire AI approach.”
The feat of accumulating this many miles without any driver behind the wheel is impressive. The thing is, Tesla is also doing this across several different locations, with varying traffic rules, pedestrian levels, weather patterns, and other important factors.
While Tesla is not ready to roll out an unsupervised platform completely, it is a slow but steady indication that the company is well on its way to figuring things out.
The company’s attitude toward expansion is slow, safe, and controlled, and despite this huge milestone, it will still be some time until we see Tesla truly unleash unsupervised rides more aggressively.
SpaceX wants to catch Starship for launch 14, Elon Musk says
Tesla to open source Model S and Model X designs and software
